![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
After seven years of implementation, the results are in: the World Bank's experiment in market-led agrarian reform in the Philippines has resulted in anti-poor outcomes. The evidence shows that wealth and power transfers in the project sites have followed four broad patterns—all flowing in one basic direction: intra-elite/elite-to-elite, state-to-elite, foreign donor-to-elite and poor-to-elite. Alongside its clear failure in this specific sense, the experiment has been a boon for the cause of anti-reform, strengthening the manoeuvres of anti-reform forces, while undermining the redistributive potentials not only of the present, but also of any future state land reform law in the country.
Notes
We thank Robin Broad for very useful comments on an earlier version of this article.
1 J Putzel, ‘The politics of partial reform in the Philippines’, in VK Ramachandran & M Swaminathan (eds), Agrarian Studies: Essays on Agrarian Relations in Less-Developed Countries, New Delhi: Tulika Books, 2002 and London: Zed, 2003, pp 213 – 229.
2 S Borras, ‘State – society relations in land reform implementation in the Philippines’, Development and Change, 32 (3), 2001, pp 545 – 575.
3 See W Bello, D Kinley & E Elinson, Development Debacle: the World Bank in the Philippines, San Francisco: Institute for Food and Development Policy, 1982; and R Broad, Unequal Alliance: The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Philippines, Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 1988.
4 World Bank, A Strategy to Fight Poverty: Philippines, Washington, DC: Agriculture and Environment Operations Division, Country Department 1, East Asia Pacific Region, 1996.
5 J Franco, ‘Market-assisted land reform in the Philippines: round two—where have all the critics gone?’, Conjuncture (Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy), 11 (2), 1999, pp 1 – 6.
6 M Esguerra, ‘The community-managed agrarian reform project (cmarp): a feasibility study’, unpublished study commissioned by arcdp-dar, Quezon City, 2001.
7 R Edillion, ‘Economic analysis of the community-managed agrarian reform pilot (cmarp)’, unpublished study commissioned by the arcdp-dar, Quezon City, 2001.
8 R Mamon, ‘Community-managed agrarian reform project (cmarp) pilot’, unpublished individual [technical adviser] report, dar-arcdp, Quezon City, 2001.
9 dar-arcdp, Community-managed Agrarian Reform Program (cmarp) Project Operations Manual, Quezon City: dar, 2001.
10 J Putzel, A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines, London: Catholic Institute for International Relations, New York: Monthly Review Press and Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1992.
11 J Franco, Elections and Democratization in the Philippines, New York: Routledge, 2001.
12 F Lara, ‘Land reform in the proposed constitution: landmarks and loopholes’, Agricultural Policy Studies (Quezon City: Philippine Peasant Institute), 1, 1986, pp 1 – 25.
13 See J Fox, The Politics of Food in Mexico: State Power and Social Mobilization, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.
14 J Franco, ‘Making land rights accessible: social movement innovation and political – legal strategies in the Philippines’, Journal of Development Studies, forthcoming.
15 Borras, ‘State – society relations in land reform implementation in the Philippines’; Borras, ‘The Philippine land reform in comparative perspective: conceptual and methodological implications’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 6 (1), 2006, pp 69 – 101; S Borras & J Franco, ‘The national land reform campaign in the Philippines’, paper prepared for the ‘Citizens’ Participation in National Policy Processes Project’ of the ids, Brighton, and the Ford Foundation, 2006; and S Borras & J Franco, ‘Struggles for land and livelihood: redistributive reform in Philippine agribusiness plantations’, Critical Asian Studies, 37 (3), 2005, pp 331 – 361.
16 See also the contribution by Nyamu-Musembi in this issue.
17 S Borras, ‘Redistributive land reform in public (forest) lands? Rethinking theory and practice with evidence from the Philippines’, Progress in Development Studies, 6 (2), 2006, pp 123 – 145; and D Carranza, ‘Dilemmas, difficulties and challenges in carrying out pro-poor property rights reforms in public lands in the Philippines’, Agrarian Notes (Quezon City: peace Foundation), 2006, at www.peace.net.ph, accessed 23 October 2006.
18 R Broad & J Cavanagh, Plundering Paradise: The Struggle for the Environment in the Philippines, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994.
19 D Carranza & P Mato, ‘Subverting peasants’ land rights: the Supreme Court decision exempting livestock areas from the coverage of agrarian reform’, Agrarian Notes, May 2006, at www.peace.net.ph, downloaded 10 July 2006.
20 See J Franco, ‘Again, they are killing peasants in the Philippines: lawlessness, murder and impunity’, Critical Asian Studies, 39 (2), 2007, pp 315 – 328.
21 Borras & Franco, ‘Struggles for land and livelihood’.
22 Carranza 2006.
23 Borras, ‘The Philippine land reforms in comparative perspective’.
24 R De la Rosa, ‘Agrarian reform movement in commercial plantations: the experience of the banana sector in Davao del Norte’, in J Franco & S Borras (eds), On Just Grounds: Struggling for Agrarian Justice and Exercising Citizenship Rights in the Rural Philippines, Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy and Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2005, pp 45 – 114.
25 Cited in S Borras, ‘Can redistributive reform be achieved via market-based land transfer schemes? Lessons and evidence from the Philippines’, Journal of Development Studies, 41 (1), 2005, pp 90 – 134.
26 De la Rosa, ‘Agrarian reform movement in commercial plantations’.
27 Putzel, A Captive Land, pp 332 – 335.
28 D Carranza, ‘Failing a reform: the Hacienda Luisita formula’, sentra Monograph 1, 1992 Series, Quezon City: sentra, 1994, pp 1 – 35; and Carranza, ‘Hacienda Luisita massacre: a tragedy waiting to happen’, Agrarian Notes, 2005, at www.peace.net.ph, accessed 18 May 2006.
29 Based on Carranza, ‘Failing a reform’; Carranza, 2006; and Putzel, A Captive Land.
30 J Franco, ‘Peripheral justice? Rethinking “non-state justice” systems in the Philippine countryside’, World Development, forthcoming.
31 For example, K Deininger, ‘Making negotiated land reform work: initial experience from Colombia, Brazil and South Africa’, World Development, 27 (4), 1999, pp 651 – 672.
32 N Peluso, Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992.
33 J Sato, ‘People in between: conversion and conservation of forest lands in Thailand’, in M Doornbos, A Saith & B White (eds), ‘Forests: Nature, People, People’ (special issue), Development and Change, 31 (1), 2000, pp 155 – 177.
34 C Kay & M Urioste, ‘Bolivia's unfinished reform: rural poverty and development policies’, in H Akram-Lodhi, S Borras & C Kay (eds), Land, Poverty and Livelihoods in an Era of Neoliberal Globalisation: Perspectives from Developing and Transition Countries, London: Routledge, 2007, pp 41 – 79.
35 S Razavi, ‘Introduction: agrarian change, gender and land rights’, Journal of Agrarian Change (special issue), 3(1 – 2), 2003, pp 2 – 32.
36 C Toulmin & J Quan (eds), Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa, London: dfid/iied/nri, 2000.
37 K Griffin, ‘Economic development in a changing world’, World Development, 9 (3), 1980, pp 221 – 226.
38 R Herring, ‘Beyond the political impossibility theorem of agrarian reform’, in P Houtzager & M Moore (eds), Changing Paths: International Development and the New Politics of Inclusion, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2003, pp 58 – 87.
39 N Peluso, ‘Violence, decentralization and resource access in Indonesia’, Peace Review, 19 (1), 2007, pp 23 – 32.
40 F Barros, S Sauer & S Schwartzman (eds), The Negative Impacts of World Bank Market-based Land Reform, Brazil: Comissao Pastoral da Terra, Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (mst) and Foodfirst Information and Action Network (fian), 2003.
41 P Rosset, R Patel & M Courville (eds), Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform, Oakland, CA: Food First Books, 2006.
42 J Harriss, Depoliticizing Development: The World Bank and Social Capital, London: Anthem Press, 2002.
43 H Akram Lodhi, S Borras Jr, C Kay & T McKinley, ‘Neoliberal globalisation, land and poverty: implications for public actions’, in Akram-Lodhi et al, Land, Poverty and Livelihoods in an Era of Neoliberal Globalisation, pp 383 – 398; S Borras, ‘Free market, export-led development strategy and its impact on rural livelihoods, poverty and inequality: the Philippine experience seen from a southeast Asian perspective’, Review of International Political Economy, 14 (1), 2007, pp 143 – 175; K Griffin, AR Khan & A Ickowitz, ‘Poverty and distribution of land’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 2 (3), 2002, pp 279 – 330; and H Bernstein, ‘Land reform: taking a long(er) view’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 2 (4), 2002, pp 433 – 463.
44 Data gathering for the national level analysis of cmarprp was carried out through a combination of research methods that included close and careful examination of nearly all programme documents, many of which are not for public consumption. This approach was combined with interviews with key informants, including: a few (in)formal discussions with Klaus Deininger of the World Bank, in 1999 and 2000 in Manila (by Borras and Franco); an interview with the director of the cmarprp (Bert Baniqued in 2002, by Borras) and with a senior programme staff member who requested anonymity (in a series of interviews in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2007, by Borras, Franco and Carranza). Interviews with two former car Secretaries (Ministers, Ernesto Garilao (in 2002, 2004) and with Horacio Morales Jr (in 2002) by Borras were also extremely useful.
45 upsardfi, ‘Families and households in the arc: focusing arcdp II for greater and lasting impact in the rural countryside’, manuscript prepared by the University of the Philippines (upsardfi), Quezon City: cswcd, up-Diliman and dar, 2001, pp 94 – 95.
46 mucep, ‘Proposal for the preparation of area development plan and household level farm business plans for World Bank – dar – cmarp project in Misamis Occidental. A Project Proposal by the Misamis University Community Extension Program (mucep) submitted to the arcdp-dar’, Misamis Occidental: mucep and Quezon City: dar-arcdp, 2001.
47 upsardfi, ‘Families and households in the arc’, p 94.
48 For a background on the World Bank support for agrarian reform communities, ie arcdp, see J Fox & J Gershman, ‘The World Bank and Social Capital: Lessons from Ten Rural Development Projects in the Philippines and Mexico', Policy Sciences, 33 (3 – 4), 2000, pp 399 – 419.
49 At the moment, there has been no other independent study on cmarprp, except for a forthcoming study by De Asis which is focused on ‘state – community partnership’ around development projects. It evades the question of land transfer.
50 dar-arcdp 2, ‘The community-managed agrarian reform and poverty reduction project (cmarprp): an impact analysis’, internal project document, Quezon City, 2007, p 1.
51 dar-arcdp 2, ‘Community-managed agrarian reform and poverty reduction project (cmarprp)’, internal project document, Quezon City, 2006, p 2.
52 Ibid.
53 See, for example, Barros et al, The Negative Impacts of World Bank Market-based Land Reform; Rosset et al, Promised Land; and JM Pereira, ‘The World Bank's “market-assisted” land reform as a political issue: evidence from Brazil (1997 – 2006)’, European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 82, 2007, pp 21 – 49.
54 Borras, ‘The Philippine land reform in comparative perspective’.
55 Borras, ‘Can redistributive reform be achieved via market-based land transfer schemes?’.
56 Data gathering for the local case studies was carried out through a combination of research methods. Following the national-level research, explained in note 44, the authors were able to secure most of the available unpublished, internal documents from all the cmarprp field sites, giving us a rare opportunity to take a close critical look at the ‘un-polished project reports’. This exercise, linked to the national level analysis, provided us with a good overview of the entire project dynamics. In addition, we carried out field visits in five project sites: Isabela, Zambales, Quezon, Negros Oriental and Davao del Norte. Borras did the Davao field visit, Carranza went to Quezon. We also recruited a few trusted research assistants to gather data for us in the field, equipped with a predetermined/semi-structured set of questionnaires: Danny Gatche for Pangasinan, Bong Gonzal for Negros, Leslie Inso for Mindoro, Wendy Ludovico for Quezon, Santiago Corpuz for Isabela, and Ronita Buenaventura for Davao. These research assistants were extremely familiar with the local agrarian structures in the project sites they were assigned to visit. The field visits were carried out on various dates in 2005 – 06. Interviewed key informants included cmarprp local project site staff, local government officials including mayors, municipal administrators, and village officials, as well as the cmarprp beneficiaries. On most occasions, focused group discussions were carried out.
57 dar-arcdp 2, ‘The community-managed agrarian reform and poverty reduction project (cmarprp): an impact analysis—integrative report’, Quezon City, 2007, p 35.
58 dar-arcdp 2-Quezon, ‘cmarprp in Guinayangan, Quezon’, Quezon City, 2006, p 9.
59 dar-arcdp 2-Mindoro, ‘Process documentation: cmarprp Occidental Mindoro: second class citizens? No more!’, internal project document, Quezon City, 2006, p 6.
60 dar-arcdp 2, ‘The community-managed agrarian reform and poverty reduction project (cmarprp): an impact analysis—integrative report’, Quezon City, 2007, p 25.
61 Ibid, pp 19, 25.
62 Ibid, p 30.
63 Ibid.
64 dar-arcdp 2, ‘The community-managed agrarian reform and poverty reduction project (cmarprp)’, p 22.
65 dar-arcdp 2-Zambales, ‘Process documentation: cmarprp against all odds’, internal project document, Quezon City, 2005, p 10.
66 dar-arcdp 2, ‘The community-managed agrarian reform and poverty reduction project (cmarprp)’, pp 21 – 22.
67 Ibid, p 7.
68 dar-arcdp 2-Zambales, ‘Process documentation’, p 5.
69 dar-arcdp 2-Samal, ‘lgu bridge funding in Samal Island, unique and one and only in the Philippines’, Quezon City, 2006, pp 6 – 7.
70 Ibid, p 7.
71 Ibid, p 16.
72 dar-arcdp 2, ‘The community-managed agrarian reform and poverty reduction project (cmarprp): an impact analysis—household level assessment’, internal document, Quezon City, 2007, pp 3 – 6.
73 Ibid, p 26.
74 Ibid, p 30.
75 See dar-arcdp 2, ‘The community-managed agrarian reform and poverty reduction project (cmarprp): an impact analysis—integrative report’, Quezon City, 2007, pp 35 – 36.
76 Borras, ‘Can redistributive reform be achieved via market-based land transfer schemes?’; Carranza, ‘Failing a reform’; Carranza, 2006; Franco, ‘Making land rights accessible’; and Franco, ‘Peripheral justice?’.
77 Putzel, ‘The politics of partial reform in the Philippines’.